SoCal cops shoot unarmed airman

[wink]

So if I think a bogey is a bad guy, I can just squeeze the trigger, huh? I thought he was bad so I fvcked up his day. O'well.

You finally got it right!! If you reasonably believe the bogey is a bandit, yes, smoke him. You have a big responsiblity in this business. Not unlike a cop. Both have to make split second decisions often with incomplete information. The consequences are deadly in both cases. You are not to be fheld responsible for a mistake no matter the gravity. That is why so few people in the military are punished for blue on blue. If the unfortunate day comes when you do accidently shoot down someone I hope, for your sake, the officers that review your actions are more judicious then your are.

 

[wink]

OBVIOUSLY IF HE WAS ARMED AND POSING A DEADLY THREAT THE COP DID THE RIGHT THING: BUT HE WASN'T!!!!!! THE GUY WAS NOT THREATENING OR ARMED SO YOUR POINT IS IRRELEVANT.

You say that based on a short poor quality video. And the point is not irrelevent if the officer thought he was. I can't think of a better case for hindsight being 20/20. Let the process play out. Join Lawman up on the fence. If he screwed the pooch he will pay.

 

[Brett327]

I can't form an opinion huh? Fvck that. I have an opinion. I saw and heard enough for me.

As for nearly 100 miles an hour. Big fvcking deal. I know i've been in vet doing 100 on 39 on the way to work before (FLY), so then I should get shot, when following some cops instructions.

ATTENTION ADVERTISERS: You too can reach this prime demographic.

Brett

 

[pilot_man]

You finally got it right!! If you reasonably believe the bogey is a bandit, yes, smoke him.

Wow this is news to me. Let me go tell the rest of the squadron that if I reasonably take a guess and think that the possibility exists, that maybe that guy isn't another f-18, I can squeeze away, maybe even two, you know one for the wife and kids. O'well, hope that wasn't my buddy.

 

[pilot_man]

Brett, do me a favor and drive really fast up to Chino, have a nice day.

 

[highlyrandom]

See how this ends? I'm sure there's someone out there, researching IP addresses, making a list to his friends of "people never to fly with because they should be ashamed of their lack of judiciousness."

It's a discussion forum. This is where you put stuff you wouldn't talk about in public because it might create assumptions about your character.

So relax, I'm the only one who is usually "beyond the pale," and that's because of the OV-10 idea, the TSA antagonism, and the fact that I've never shot anybody before. Pretty freaking sheltered, eh?

 

[Brett327]

Wow this is news to me. Let me go tell the rest of the squadron that if I reasonably take a guess and think that the possibility exists, that maybe that guy isn't another f-18, I can squeeze away, maybe even two, you know one for the wife and kids. O'well, hope that wasn't my buddy.

With reasonably being the operative term here, I'm in absolute agreement with Wink. Reasonably is always going to be defined in terms of the various ROE wickets required to make a declaration. Chances are, you're not the one who's going to be making that DEC call, especially in a BVR situation. The analogy is a good one. It's the manner in which you choose to interpret it that makes me question your judgment.

Brett

 

[wink]

OK. Not a 200 lb man, but designed for grown-ups, not children. Sheriffs dept. all around agree with that, just do a google search. My point is cops often over step their boundaries, and if that possibility exists, then steps should be in place to keep things like this from happening.

I don't have to google anything. Last night there was a one inch stack of Taser studies on my bed. I don't talk out of my ass. I also have personal knowledge of what the policies are of my local sheriff's office and most of the muni agencies around here.

Cops don't "often overstep their boundries". It is simply not supported by any facts. In fact, the inverse is true. If you don't believe that you must have an underlying hatred for authority that is incompatable with the military.

You are a simple minded if you think that many many steps are not already taken to ensure that mistakes in the use of deadly force are minimized. And if there is a lesson to be learned from the case in question you can be sure it will be taken to heart.

 

[wink]

Wink, I cannot even believe you are arguing this. This should have never happened. PERIOD. You cannot relate a military battle (ground or air) against an ARMED enemy with a police officer shooting a citizen.

Yeah you can give the argument we both have our mission we are here to protect...yada yada yada but it is not the same.

What Brett said re the analogy. Thanks Brett.

I am not defending the cop. I simply am not willing to hang the guy based on what little we know. What is wrong with you guys? Since the guy was not armed it shouldn't have happened. Hindsight. But that is a far cry from asserting that the mistake is not defensable since we don't know all the facts. You guys slay me. You guys may make a mistake some day. Prang an airplane, say the wrong thing to a subordinate of the opposite gender, frag some friendlies, who knows. And when that happens I hope you guys are treated better then you have treated this officer.

 

[Fly Navy]

After discussing and listening to Wink, I'm with him and Brett. What they said.

 

[highlyrandom]

Wink, you're obviously well versed in the subject. I'd only ask that you stand by your views based on your current expertise, not on the idea that somehow to "support and defend the Constitution" is to love and enjoy every law and ideal supported by our country. Military officer? Sure, I'll submit to searches and weird laws, since I obviously have nothing to hide! pilot_man doesn't come across as having a hatred for any authority, just a healthy distaste for abuses that even we, the middle class, occasionally encounter. I have a huge dislike for our local police force, since they are admittedly in the pocket of the mob. That didn't end when I joined the Navy, it just means that I won't tell them how much I disrespect them while I'm still serving. There are some dumb laws out there, and there are some good ones, too.

 

[Fly Navy]

Sure, I'll submit to searches and weird laws, since I obviously have nothing to hide!

Why? If you have nothing to hide, and you're being searched for some unknown reason, why submit to it? I'm not talking about the airport or anything like that, but I've had friends pulled over by the police, for no real reason, then submit to drug searches because they "had nothing to hide". That's straight up illegal. Don't stand for it.

 

[Brett327]

from what I saw Shooting THAT kid was unwarranted.

Precisely the point.

Brett

 

[highlyrandom]

Fly, it was just more sarcasm. It's that philosophy I want to avoid.

N.B. I'm not even disagreeing on these points with Wink and Brett. But random internet libel isn't yet illegal or even all that immoral...I'm willing to bet that everyone has learned something for it, and while maybe some people hate policemen (hate isn't good for anyone) more than they did before, some might have gained an insight into the responsibilites of the office and perhaps a newfound respect. Which is worth the discussion.

If you guys want to start a holier than thou war over it, fine, but keep a spot open on the board for those of us who don't like to do "inches" of research for a bunch of total strangers. And yes, that's for you, Wink, for being older, wiser, and still thinking that some idiot who likes to drive around at 100 mph is worth a spike in blood pressure. I still want to find out who were the jackasses that devalued the officer corps by short-changing our physical indoctrination, so if we're just trying to improve the breed, I'm with you all the way, just from the other end of the age range.

 

[Fly Navy]

Fly, it was just more sarcasm. It's that philosophy I want to avoid.

Ok, gotcha.